Wikipedia:Peer review/Fiona Graham/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review as I've spent some time cleaning up the contents, referencing, accuracy and layout of this article.
It had issues with disruptive edits, addition of copyvio material likely from sockpuppet and/or COI editors, and was pretty messily structured and written. This being the first BLP article I've edited, I hope I've improved upon these things. I did have a look at the last rating it receieved against B-class criteria, and the two that weren't met - coverage and accuracy, structure - I think would be met now.
I hope that I've improved it, but I'd welcome any comments on going further.
Many thanks, --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Ineffablebookkeeper: Hello, I am going to be doing your peer review for today. Here are some things I have concerns about:
- The early life section is pretty short.
- The external links section should probably be split off into a further reading section unless that is an intentional choice.
- I'm going to send over to you on WP:Discord some extra sources that I have access to, and you should consider incorporating them into this work.
- If the goal is get this article to eventually GA-class, then it's nearly there! :D
Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Start of the coverage of anthropology; my version:
- Graham has published three volumes of anthropology.
- Inside the Japanese Company (2003) and A Japanese Company in Crisis (2005) are about the large insurance company (given the fictional name "C‑Life") that she joined upon graduation, and which she later observed, first as a researcher and later as a documentary film maker.[1] [...]
- Current version:
- Graham has published three volumes of anthropology; in Inside the Japanese Company (2003) and A Japanese Company in Crisis (2005), the fictionalised account of Graham's time spent working in a large insurance company post-graduation,[1] [...]
- I read Elger's review before writing that material. Imaginably I made a mistake. I don't currently have access to the review. Does Elger really say that this book (marketed as academic) provides a "fictionalised account"? I'm also puzzled by the change from precise "upon graduation" to vague "post-graduation", not to mention the disappearance of any mention of FG's return to the company no longer as one of its employees but instead as a researcher and later as a documentary film maker.
- And this is all about less than one paragraph. I don't much want to read more of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- ^ a b Tony Elger, "Japanese employment relations after the bubble", British Journal of Industrial Relations 44 (2006): 801–805, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8543.2006.00524_1.x. (Review of Graham's Inside the Japanese Company and A Japanese Company in Crisis and of Ross Mouer and Hirosuke Kawanishi's A Sociology of Work in Japan.)
Ineffablebookkeeper, you asked for comments. Almost a month ago, I gave you some (see immediately above). They were rather tentatively phrased, but since then I've looked again at the three sources I cited in this earlier version of the article, and I don't see any sign in any of the three that FG's account is fictionalized. Where did you find this? (It's a pretty serious charge to level against any book that's marketed as academic, as these books were.) Have you read either book? I haven't, but McCann says that they're about "C‑Life", the fictional name of a large insurance company that went bust in October 2000. Large Japanese companies don't often go bust, large Japanese insurance companies rarely go bust. Chiyoda Seimei Hoken was a large insurance company that went bust in October 2000. Did you remove this because it seemed like editorializing, because it didn't interest you, or for some other reason?
As I compare the section of the article about FG as anthropologist in the versions before and after you did your rewrite, I greatly prefer the earlier one. But I'm open minded: please tell me what I misunderstand or fail to notice. (I'd be interested in MJL's comments too.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi - from what I can recall, I was either drawing from previous edits of the article, or made the assumption that the books were a fictionalised account. I hadn't realised that they were marketed as academic literature - I was just trying to clean up the article, and made a mistake based on books I hadn't read and my attempts to put the text into some kind of legible article. Please forgive me. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)